Sunday, April 05, 2009

Narcissism and victimhood: A deadly combination?

Jiverly Wong was upset over losing his job at a vacuum plant, didn't like people picking on him for his limited English and once angrily told a co-worker, "America sucks."

It remains unclear exactly why the Vietnamese immigrant strapped on a bulletproof vest, barged in on a citizenship class and killed 13 people and himself, but the police chief says he knows one thing for sure: "He must have been a coward."

Jiverly Wong had apparently been preparing for a gun battle with police but changed course and decided to turn the gun on himself when he heard sirens approaching, Chief Joseph Zikuski said Saturday.

"He had a lot of ammunition on him, so thank God before more lives were lost, he decided to do that," the chief said.

Police and Wong's acquaintances portrayed him as an angry, troubled 41-year-old man who struggled with drugs and job loss and perhaps blamed his adopted country for his troubles. His rampage "was not a surprise" to those who knew him, Zikuski said. ...

Back in New York, he worked at the Shop-Vac plant in Binghamton. Former co-worker Kevin Greene told the Daily News of New York that Wong once said, in answer to whether he liked the New York Yankees, "No, I don't like that team. I don't like America. America sucks."

I do wonder how much a sense of entitlement (these types of killers often display a sense of narcissism) combined with continued coverage of how bad America is played a part in contributing to this killer's distorted thinking process? Psychologists and experts often find that in mass killers:

..."the central role of narcissism plainly connects them. Only a narcissist could decide that his alienation should be underlined in the blood of strangers..."

Psychologists from South Africa to Chicago have begun to recognize that extreme self-centeredness is the forest in these stories, and all the other things-- guns, games, lyrics, pornography--are just trees. To list the traits of the narcissist is enough to prove the point: grandiosity, numbness to the needs and pain of others, emotional isolation, resentment and envy...

Freud explained narcissism as a failure to grow up. All infants are narcissists, he pointed out, but as we grow, we ought to learn that other people have lives independent of our own. It's not their job to please us, applaud for us or even notice us--let alone die because we're unhappy...

A generation ago, the social critic Christopher Lasch diagnosed narcissism as the signal disorder of contemporary American culture. The cult of celebrity, the marketing of instant gratification, skepticism toward moral codes and the politics of victimhood were signs of a society regressing toward the infant stage.

In America, we continue to teach people to be more and more reliant on government and in a sense, never grow up. How will a nation of victims play out over the coming years? Will we see more of this type of violence? Mass killings are rare but what are the other repercussions that a lack of personal responsibility combined with a sense of entitlement will bring?

Good luck to people with that--the police often seem to play clean up in these cases rather than trying to stop them as they are happening. I read that it took up to two hours for police to go in but other accounts say they were there sooner. Either way, five seconds after someone has been shot is too late.

Narcissicm or not, at least this is an attempt to evaluate root causes, not a hysterical rant against the weapons du jour.

Elsewhere lines form at the podium, as people await their chance to bend this horror to their own political ends.

Knives, guns or 2*4s - in a nation of 320,000,000 you will always have a few bad apples. The government cannot be there to protect you, they can only put chalk on the sidewalk and yellow tape around the crime scene in a belated effort to evaluate whodunit. It remains for the prudent individual to take their own defensive measures, as always.

I don't relish his speech like many on the Web do, but Evan Sayet's "Modern Liberal" speech at the Heritage Foundation (on YouTube) makes many of the same charges re the inability for some people to just grow up.

I'm a bit suspicious of the official statement (no conspiracy theorist here!). Wong was Vietnamese. Yes, they must have their own bad apples, but in my numerous encounters with East Asians, this kind of self-centeredness is PREPOSTEROUSLY RARE! Frankly, I'd bet dollars to donuts that this guy was routinely mistreated. Not that this is an excuse. I just smell a great big rat in this story.

Dr. Helen, you will get no argument from me on that. I was merely pointing out that most people are not prepared to take responsibility for their own safety and governments are only too happy to exploit that.

“...in my numerous encounters with East Asians, this kind of self-centeredness is PREPOSTEROUSLY RARE!”

I don't know where the connection is between reliance on the government and narcissism. Narcissism is all about people who think they deserve everything; a job, a house, a spouse, a family and friends, regardless of their actions.

Mr. Wong was upset that he had challenges with the English language. I can see that, English is hard for Asians. I'd hate to see what I'd sound like if I had to learn Vietnamese. However, if one has challenges with English, whose fault is that? Did his classmates diss him, or were they laughing at his pronunciation almost as they were laughing at themselves, typical of a classroom environment?

Again, I am going to bring up the fact that it seems like men are causing these mass killings that end in their own suicide, and, no, they are rare, it's one every 5 days now. Women aren't. So there has to be a reason why. Could there be a biological reason? I think not.

There is a big difference between the way some boys are taught to view themselves throughout childhood and the ways girls are taught to view themselves. Could it be that some mothers teach their teenage sons that they are special, they deserve, they shall have, they are wonderful not matter what? Mothers will view teen girls as competition, and encourage them to learn to stand on their own two feet much more so that they do boys, convincing them to leave the home and go get educated. Boys aren't pushed out the door so quickly.

Hence, when the superfantastic job doesn't materialize for the man, he blames others. When the wife leaves a man may get angry, how dare she leave! Trouble with English, the coworker looks at someone the wrong way, the minister isn't nice, the parents are mean, it's all the same..... for some it's pull out the gun and start shooting. It's somebody else's fault, certainly not his.

Mind you, this is happening to a very small percentage of men, but they are creating a large problem with the attitude and the resulting actions. If these men who are so angry at everyone else for their own problems think that killing other people and themselves is going to turn things around for other like them, they are sadly mistaken.

In the meantime, I'm starting to make an effort to stay out of confining public spaces. They can be a hazard to one's health.

Off topic but related to the incident - "Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building."

They arrived within two minutes of getting the call.

So much for the "golden hour"

I guess now we can stop being so prissy about the British police stopping neighbors from trying to rescue a family from a house that was on fire.

There any number of reasons why some people go off the deep end. For example, decades ago the guy who climbed the clock tower at UT Austin and started shooting people on the streets with a high powered rifle had a brain tumor that drove him insane.

Of course, at the time, men in Texas were pulling over, taking the deer rifles out of the backs of their trucks, and shooting back, which helped minimize the number of civilians this lunatic could actually kill.

So there is something to the argument that the infantilization and vicitimization of the culture will lead to, or fail to prevent, more incidents of this type.

Howbeit, the obvious solution is not gun control but immigration control.

Slightly off topic: I have found that laughing at your mistakes helps to break the stress of trying to learn the language. Admittedly I haven't tried a jump as far as Vietnamese to English. Just French (can't remember), Latin (out of practice), and German (Wie sagt man "currently taking" auf Deutsch? Vielleicht besuche ich Vorlesungen?)

Cham: ”I don't know where the connection is between reliance on the government and narcissism. Narcissism is all about people who think they deserve everything; a job, a house, a spouse, a family and friends, regardless of their actions.”

Are you serious? Many people DO feel they deserve many of those things simply by virtue of having a pulse and belonging to a particular demographic, and they believe that the government should provide many of those things. Does Fannie Mae ring a bell?

Yeah, I have heard people say that every American deserves their own home. People that I would expect would know better. The American dream has changed from freedom from government interference and a chance to make it based on hard work to some kind of socialist paradise where the world is given to them.

Are you serious? Many people DO feel they deserve many of those things simply by virtue of having a pulse and belonging to a particular demographic, and they believe that the government should provide many of those things.

How do you know. Where do you get this from other than from what you think.

There's the 3 cop killer whose mother brought police to the house when she wanted him kicked out of the basement; and

the man who killed his 4 girls and son after finding out his wife was leaving him for another man. Now before you get too on this guy's side commenters, he allegedly impregnated her at 13, meaning since the oldest girl killed was 16, the cheating momma would be about 29 now if my math is correct.

At some point folks, I don't think we can gender generalize too much in expecting answers. So much for Trey's theory that testosterone makes guys pick tougher targets (works in the case of the cop shoot out; not so much the fatherly coward who killed the kids in their beds in the mobile home).

I think maybe you take the sickness, the stresses of modern life and the economy, the guns, and an aggravating factor (mom kicking you out; wife leaving you for another man) and some people -- man or woman -- blows and kills either their own family, authority figures who respond like police, or a collection like in a mall, church, school, etc.

Not sure if these two guys were medicated as one commenter above makes a connection, but they were only human. What makes one person break, while another bears up and guts out his situation? Maybe life training? How they were brought up to regard life, God, others? My favorite line about the WA family killing was this: "This was not a tragedy. It was a rotten murder," Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor said. "This appears to be the terrible work of the biological father. If that doesn't break your heart, I don't know what does."

Maybe we should be focusing on, or studying the men who survive and strive under great stress, seeing what they have in them that causes a positive response, rather than wasting time on the man who acquaintances say controlled the wife, hollered at the kids enough for neighbors to contact social services, and ultimately killed them all when the wife left.

I say we study the man who killed his kids while they slept. I'm a little worried about how many more of them are out there and what little it is going to take to get them to start shooting. But my fellow US citizens really don't want to know that.

Perhaps we don't really want to know how easy it was for these nutjobs to get their hands on lots of guns and ammo, how unable these men were to deal with their tempers and how these guys thought that other people needed to be punished for whatever ticked them off.

We may not like what we find. Expect more shootings and more killings in the future. We can all shake our heads at the "tragedies" and go about our business.

Here's an interesting paragraph from a CNN article about the triple police shooting in Pittsburgh:

"Margaret Poplawski told police her son had enlisted in the Marine Corps a few years ago, but was discharged for assaulting his drill sergeant in basic training, according to the complaint. Since his discharge, she told police, he had been "stockpiling guns and ammunition, buying and selling the weapons online, because he believed that as a result of the economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society. Mrs. Poplawski reported that her son only liked police when they were not curtailing his constitutional rights, which he was determined to protect," the complaint said."

Again with the early termination from the military. It's interesting that even though this man was involved with an assault, he still could buy lots of guns and ammo.

This coupled with testosterone has always been my theory why there are more male mass killers - only guys are that self-absorbed to actually think that is their right. This may change, but I see this pattern of gender differences in two-yr-olds raised in anally progressive circumstances . Nor have I considered it a coincidence that LA has always attracted more than its fair share of serial killers.

With all the coverage of celebrity narcissists lately it begs the observation that narcissism is rewarded mightily for a certain few on a basis that has nothing to do with outcomes one can effect (hard work, study v. luck, genes, social position). So in a basically democratic society, why wouldn't a few fringe types expect it as part of their equal rights and get angry when it is denied them?

Trey: “Jack, just for fun, google "housing a right" and get 102,000,000 hits in .32 seconds.”

While he is at it, maybe he could look up the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Behold:

Article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization...of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his [narcissistic]personality.

Article 23: Everyone has the right to work...

Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26: Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free...

Our Bill of Rights lists things the government can't do to us, and things it can't take away from us. The assumption is made that people can provide for themselves and arrange their own lives if the government doesn't prevent them. What a contrast to this UN thing.

My hope is that suffering caused by the "lack of personal responsibility combined with a sense of entitlement" will change as harsh realities force most of us (myself included)to grow up.

This won't be easy. We have had it so easy for so long that some will resort to irrationally lashing out. But in my opinion, the question of if it will happen is moot.

There will be more economic pain, far more than most of us have ever dealt with (although our grandparents did, and survived), and that will undoubtedly lead to incidents of irrational violence.

I've spent quite a bit of time over the last months with the few remaining people I know who lived as adults through the Great Depression. Each of them says that economically, they were worse off than now; but they also look back nostalgically on the sense of community that developed, and the lifelong friends they made as they all worked together to survive. I haven't seen that developing to a significant degree - yet; but I hope it does and I look forward to it.

@ Laura "Our Bill of Rights lists things the government can't do to us, and things it can't take away from us"

The problem with the UN "rights" is they violate the definition of rights used by the people who wrote our first ten Amendments. A right cannot impinge on another's life. Thus demanding housing implies demanding someone else give up Their Life, at least in part, to pay for it.

That is not a right, it is a form of involuntary indentured servitude just like food stamps, and all wealth transfer payments.

The problem with the UN is it doesn't matter how many people believe in what they say... what matters is if Big Ears & his secretary, Shillary, believe in what they say.

What most people don't understand is that International Law trumps National Law. And we don't vote for our international representatives. The best that we will get is something similar to the EU where we vote in representatives who give recommendations to an unelected bureuacratic octopus run by foreigners.

Obama, for example, has expressed sympathy with signing the CEDAW (Covenant to End Discrimination Against Women) which is Feminism on International Steroids, and is also attached to "The Rights of the Child" which essentially places the child's rights above those of the parent - going directly against two US Supreme Court rulings (one in the 70's & one in the 2000's) which have stated that parents naturally protect the rights of their children and operate in their offspring's best interests by nature, therefore the state should not intervene.

Hillary certain believes in this sympathy with the UN position as well, lol, it is her university thesis that children are like indians on the reservation, and that children's rights are not properly represented by parents and families, therefore child rights should pass over to "the village" (a government bureuacracy) which will best represent the child (by over-riding parental rights).

This is exactly the formula that was used to split apart men and women, and next up... well, ladies, YOU are next for the cyanide showers, YOU LADIES (the majority of parents today), are about to find out what it was like to be a man, having to put up with women's shit... because soon, they are gonna force women to put up with children's shit! (And there aren't any men around who really give two shits about the ladies anymore, after 40 years of hate from them).

Imagine that you have an eight year old child who comes home one day from school and declares that he has decided to become a follower of, say, Islam, after his teacher taught him about it favourably etc. etc. As a parent, you would be in violation of your child's rights if you tried to take your child to Sunday school and force Christianity on him overtop of Islam - in fact, as a parent you will be in violation of your child's rights if you do not provide your child the means to practice their chosen religion.

It goes on and on.

People have to realize that international organizations, like the UN, the EU and the future NAU, are set up to be "an end run" around our constitutions.

While people in America are busy fighting the American government to maintain something like their Second Amendment Right to bear arms... at the same time, Hopey & his secretary will be signing International Treaties with organizations such as the UN, that take away your right to bear arms by international treaty, and supercede your national Constitution.

Who cares then what your "rights" are in your country, when a body that supercedes your country says "no"?

Check out how the UN treated the democratic state of Nicaragua when their 80% Catholic population decided to make abortion illegal... the UN threatened all kinds of world-wide economic sanctions against them for expressing the democratic will of their people, which was contrary to the UN agenda.

The G20 is now in the process of integrating all of our financial systems together, under the umbrella of UN backed organizations... which will make it all the harder for a sovereign nation to tell the UN to pound sand when their bureaucratic dictators decree other things we don't like, and are specifically not beneficial to the people.

The problem is that not enough people understand the implications of co-operating with these international bodies, and the ability they have to circumvent your guaranteed rights.

The Covenants of the UN are not attached to God, btw. They are set up exactly as the old constitution of the USSR - your rights are granted to you by the limitations of law (they are granted by man, not God), and they are forever subjected to change.

"We live in a cause and effect world and narcissists don't get very far IRL."

The problem is, they do often get far. Research shows that people tend to choose and follow narcissists as leaders even though they often turn out to be poor at it. Narcissism and entitlement in our society currently is rewarded. People now believe and are encouraged by the government to believe that they are entitled and have a right to goods and wealth that others produce, a right to health care, a right to redistribute wealth, a house they can't afford etc.

An individual seldom, if ever, changes his political stance no matter how much reason or logic to the contrary is forthcoming. I rail on about the glories of less government and feel gratified when the usual cast of compatible correspondents agree with me. But nothing changes. The liberal progressive guy down the hall no doubt is immersed in The Daily Kos to the same effect. Meanwhile friends go unvisited, bills go unpaid, the garden gets weedier.

In 1973 a man called Peter C Newman wrote a book called The Canadian Establishment, which has since been revised. (I was living there at the time). It blew the lid off Canadian politics by revealing how Canada was really controlled by about 300 close-knit families who intermarried, owned the gigantic corporations and ran the banks, went to the same private schools and so on and so on. Names were named. It was a true eye-opener, yet the system endures to this day.

Google The Power Corporation, Paul Desmarais and Maurice Strong to see what I am talking about.

The USA is 10 times larger and the economy infinitely more complex, yet I believe the same system prevails, as it does in most countries in one form or another. It is not formally organized; yet if you are the scion of an 'elite' family you go to Harvard, not Michigan. You enter banking, law or diplomatic circles. You marry well. Doors open for you, the main criterion being you will not rock the boat.

You set the interest rates, determine fiscal policy, and in times of economic crisis transfer vast sums of money from taxpayers yet unborn to prop up the system from which you and your friends benefit. Bankruptcy is averted, a cleansing does not take place, the same names and faces continue to summer in the Hamptons and sail off Nantucket.

These are the people who sign off on the political candidates. They are the reason why once elected even the most radical of candidates hues to the current approved line of policies. Why Warren Buffet has taken a decidedly liberal stance. The strength of American business has always allowed for outliers to join the anointed; people like Bill Gates, who now concerns himself with charities and so on. But make no mistake, Harry Truman may have been a small town haberdasher from Kansas, but he was thoroughly vetted by the big boys before being stuck up on stage for public viewing.

We live in a unicameral kleptocracy. All else is an illusion to keep the peace by fomenting political discourse. My tea kettle has a whistle that blows off steam.

As proof I offer this - try not paying your income tax. Despite there being no legal mandate for you to file a 1040, not doing so will result in your eventually joining Big Bruno in the showers at the Federal pen. Can you find a law saying Americans must file - it does not exist. Similarly who owns the Federal Reserve Bank which issues all our currency? It is privately held - can you find who owns it? If you pursue this path with enough zeal your taxes will be audited consistently so make sure they are in order.

Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a “‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for failure to file a return.

Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”

(a) General ruleWhen required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

Not about the entitlement / narcissism, rather back to the pathetic response time of the police. I wonder how many victims bled out while the police waited in Binghamton (2 HOURS?) to make it safe for the officers. That's just wrong.

In the NC nursing home shooting a LONE deputy arrived, called for backup, and then went in and found the shooter. The deputy shot him, and the shooter was captured. The deputy (a 24 year old) was shot three times himself in the leg.

The shooter did not kill any more patients or staff, because the deputy did not wait.

"@ Laura "Our Bill of Rights lists things the government can't do to us, and things it can't take away from us"

The problem with the UN "rights" is they violate the definition of rights used by the people who wrote our first ten Amendments. A right cannot impinge on another's life. Thus demanding housing implies demanding someone else give up Their Life, at least in part, to pay for it.

That is not a right, it is a form of involuntary indentured servitude just like food stamps, and all wealth transfer payments."

Uncle Ken, no, because if our hearts are pure these things will float down from heaven like manna!

A few years ago the city council in Memphis decided to bar the utility company from turning people's power off for nonpayment during the cold months. I braced myself for higher rates, of course, but one of the councilpeople told the utility company that they could not use this as an "excuse" to raise rates; this could not be necessary, because the purpose of the new rule was to help people. In other words, if your intentions are good, then arithmetic flies out the window. The next time we needed service, to fix a broken water line behind our house, we found out where the money came from.

I don't see anybody following all of these things we're supposed to have back up the chain and asking "where does it come from". So it ends up, as you say, with involuntary servitude; or with people not going into medicine or whatever b/c they can't make enough money to even pay back their student loans.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the income tax is a tax on property and capital gains, not on labor and wages. Can you show me a statute that allows a direct, unapportioned tax on the wages and labor of the American people?

I do wonder how much a sense of entitlement (these types of killers often display a sense of narcissism) combined with continued coverage of how bad America is played a part in contributing to this killer's distorted thinking process?

Regarding that "continuing coverage," I take it then that you'd apply the same question to the young white supremecist who just shot three cops and was obsessed with the fear that Obama would take his guns away. Because I'm hearing a lot of howling out in the conservative blogosphere in response to any suggestion that some of the current Glenn Beck-style "America's turning fascist!" propaganda might have stoked that troubled young man's fires. But you seem to be suggesting the same thing here for this guy, so I'm going to assume it's a reasonable question across the board.

I've been saying for decades that we are raising a group of people who have never learned to fail and rise above it. And, yes, with government becoming the nanny, they will never have to grow up, but what if someone tries to change that culture. We may be too late to change without mass violence.

S, my guess would be that the mass shooters were already disturbed people (no surprise there) and the antidepressants are part of a failed attempt to get them straightened out. Presumably the a-ds do work for some.

Joe: ”How rich in irony since we know for sure that the police chief and his top officers are all cowards.”

In their minds, officer safety is paramount. What many Americans don't realize is that law enforcement has no actual duty to protect you from harm. This has been discovered the hard way by many people, and upheld in court (Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al). Their motto “to serve and protect” more accurately describes their relationship to the government, not to you, Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

Now, there may be brave individual officers who do not want to wait and would eagerly engage a rampaging maniac, but their department training and/or policy (which varies from one place to another), may dictate that they wait. Officers they have a choice: they can disregard orders and go in alone, a dangerous situation where the outcome is uncertain, or they can wait and play it safe. In either case, it matters little to you, because the police are almost always behind the curve in a situation like this. Unless it transpires right in front of a police officer, they are always going to be reacting too late. It only takes a few seconds to kill someone with a small knife, an instrument that can be easily obtained no matter how many draconian laws are passed.

The police are in a difficult position because if they rush in to a situation and it goes haywire, citizens and officers may die and the department gets castigated for being a bunch of reckless cowboys. If they sit and wait for more information before acting, they may be vilified as cowards (but at least they are not dead). People will wonder why the killer lashed out or why the police did not do something. I don't really care very much about those things. The real questions here are: why do so many citizens have such casual attitudes about their own safety? Why have citizens abrogated a primal duty, self preservation, to a government organization? Why do so many people think they have a “right” to be “safe” and that the government should provide this “safety”? Why do governments and police agencies encourage and cultivate this attitude?

No government entity is ever going to care more about you than you do. Anyone who depends solely on the government to defend them and their loved ones from criminal violence is a fool and a coward.

Jack: “...are we supposed to just accept what some posters here are feeding us.”

Here's just one small example of the kind of attitudes I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjM866oZwMM

How many examples will be required to “prove” to you that many people share this sentiment? Do I really need “stats”, or will the number of people who voted for Obama be sufficient?

Rob Fedders :“While people in America are busy fighting the American government to maintain something like their Second Amendment Right to bear arms... at the same time, Hopey & his secretary will be signing International Treaties with organizations such as the UN, that take away your right to bear arms by international treaty, and supercede your national Constitution.

Events like these spontaneous outbursts of homicidal rage will be the held up as the rationale for implementing the latest phase of their incremental gun confiscation agenda, just one step further into being assimilated into the Borg Collective. And despite your skepticism, that suits many people just fine, Jack.

As proof I offer this - try not paying your income tax. Despite there being no legal mandate for you to file a 1040, not doing so will result in your eventually joining Big Bruno in the showers at the Federal pen.

Or you get to be Treasury Secretary, one. (That guy should so be in prison instead of in the Cabinet, and it's caused me to not take a thing he says seriously. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and that's a big problem...)

And I'd like to cast one more vote for our esteemed hostess to turn off the auto-refresh feature.

@Dr Helen - those research results are from studying a handful of outlier rock star types. Not a representative cross sampling of all NPDers in all walks of life, and the bulk of them don't do near as well because their pathology causes chaos and reduces trust and so they cut off their own opportunities.

The research of ordinary self-made millionaire types in Millionaire Next Door - the #1 attribute was radically high levels of integrity. It takes integrity to build the trust to be successful. Business is nothing but relationships. NPDers can't maintain integrity or trust, hence their business and their opportunities suffer.

The unusual rock star type may be successful in the market through a very carefully controlled successfully marketed image but they are often kept out of the public as much as possible when not performing. Not good for PR and sales. But their market success depends on the kindness of strangers--not on ongoing close relationships. When they take themselves a little too seriously and step out of line and display their narcissistic self importance, it offends their fan base and they pay the consequences for it. Example: Dixie Chicks.